You are throwing shyt on top of fertilizer now. :grin: And you know it with that statement. No Democrat running for a viable office has ever called for the full redistribution of wealth. This isnt Russia, "is this Russia Danny". I never said republicans are responsible for passing the bailout plan, If the things you mention are the republican platform and they are against "perceived socialism", I wanted you to defend those republicans on the merit, those who voted for the bailout, which is "perceived socialism". Otherwise you will have to defend them from a cover your ass view of their vote.
I believe the back and forth has skewed my point. I'm not trying to defend republicans record. My initial point was that it is untrue to say that they are not trying to reverse distribution of wealth. This has always been a big point for the republicans. You can't point at one bill when the country is on the verge of total financial collapse and argue it as the norm over the last 30 years. To be clear, I will not defend anything the republicans have done in the last eight years for sure and I never said they were right in anything they have done. I was just pointing out the ideology.
Regardless of "not doing anything about it", I'm still not voting for the explicitly socialist candidate who (to use pejoratives) ain't afraid to state his intentions on the matter. He ain't Robin Hood, George W. Bush ain't the Sheriff of Nottingham, and this ain't Sherwood Forest. :cuss: Deep down, you realize that this is patently indefensible according to the principles of capitalism. That's why you are doing nothing to defend your candidate but everything to bash the Republican party.
You don't need to defend the republicans. This thread is about BHO and his explicitly socialist agenda. Attempting to paint our party with a broad brush is nothing more than leftist defensive rhetoric.
I dont have to bash the republican party when it is evident of the hypocrisy. I dont have to defend my candidate, of what you call the principles of capitalism. WHen it has nothing to do with principles of economic philosophy as big as captalism. Im all for that, but blind capitalism and deregulation is just as bad as redistribution of wealth and class warfare. Its just from the top down then. Inmates running the prison, see where that got us in 1987 and 2008 Why do you have to be so angry, this was just a good hearted discussion. Calm down a bit.
This isn't a sentence I disagree. Deregulation speaks to the fundamental belief in human good that Ronald Reagan possessed. He may have been misguided to the extent of greed that corporate America possesses, but I believe in the ideals of capitalism much more than in the ideals that BHO possesses. To be fair, it is the party of Jimmy Carter, Franklin Raines, and William Jefferson Clinton that has their fingerprints on loaning money to people that can't pay it back (in the name of redistribution of wealth and class warfare... EVERYONE DESERVES A HOUSE!!!). Unfortunately from there, greed took over and corporations outside of Fannie/Freddie saw how much leveraging could be done on these types of loans (deregulation). Swinging the pendulum all the way to the left is simply not the answer.
I wasn't angry until I heard Howard Stern's correspondent traveling through Harlem asking the Obama supporters whether or not Sarah Palin would make a good president if necessary. :cuss::cuss::cuss:
This thread isnt about Barack Obama, it was a question on small business. Just because you want to make it to be about Obama, doesnt make your rhetoric true.
But your not equally as angry when people say they wont vote for him because he's black, or a terrorist?
